[HN Gopher] Pie doesn't need to be original unless you claim it so
___________________________________________________________________
Pie doesn't need to be original unless you claim it so
Author : brianyu8
Score : 121 points
Date : 2024-08-26 13:11 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (buttondown.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (buttondown.com)
| skadamat wrote:
| Loved this article and couldn't agree more with Geoffrey's point.
| jacknews wrote:
| I agree with the idea that many projects are just fun and stand
| on that basis, but the analogy doesn't work IMHO.
|
| When you bake a pie, it gets eaten, so who cares if it's just
| like another pie, in fact it's probably great if it is. And the
| more people baking peach pies, the better!
|
| The analogy should be with pie recipes. In that case, your pie
| recipe really should bring something different to existing ones.
| It doesn't need to be 'better' necessarily, but if it's
| essentially identical, there's no real point to the recipe,
| except for you to practice writing out recipes.
| pif wrote:
| I read your comment just after posting mine. You have expressed
| the concept better than I did.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| My thoughts exactly. The author compared two concepts that
| exist at two entirely different levels of abstraction and
| utility.
| manuelmoreale wrote:
| I guess that final "except" is the entire point? You do
| something even if it's not original or different because it's
| fun and good practice for you.
|
| Because maybe it is the same recipe with the same ingredients
| but the end result can still be different. Maybe yours is
| handwritten and I like your calligraphy, maybe you're more
| meticulous and you documented all the steps more in details.
|
| It can still be the same recipe. It can still provide the same
| service and yet there might still be useful differences.
| jacknews wrote:
| So these things _are_ the 'what's different'.
|
| As a software example, 'ls' but written in rust.
|
| There's of course nothing wrong with re-implementing 'ls' in
| C with all the same patterns, and sure, that could be fun,
| and maybe even earn a slither of respect, but no-one is going
| to care about your project as something useful or
| interesting, quite rightly.
| manuelmoreale wrote:
| > So these things are the 'what's different'.
|
| If you consider those part of the recipe then I guess yes.
|
| > but no-one is going to care about your project as
| something useful or interesting, quite rightly.
|
| Which is totally fair and I think part of the article
| argues that there are situations where that's absolutely
| fine.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| The article isn't just saying it's "absolutely fine" to
| make software for fun/practice, it's complaining about
| other people having utility-focused questions and
| evaluations. Assuming that "show it to your friend" is
| supposed to be an analogy for more general showing off,
| reactions like that are plenty reasonable. If it's
| software nobody is intended to use then that should be
| made clear up front.
| pif wrote:
| Pie cannot be duplicated. Even if you're offering me a worse pie
| than I ate yesterday, either I enjoy yours or I have no pie.
|
| Software, on the other side, is duplicated on a whim. If you are
| not offering me new solutions that I need, I'm not even going to
| bother looking at it.
| manuelmoreale wrote:
| I'm genuinely confused by your comment. Pies can be duplicated.
| You just grab the same ingredients and follow the same recipe.
|
| Same thing happens with software. You grab the same libraries
| and languages and build the same thing.
|
| I think I get what you're trying to say when it comes to
| software but sometimes one might switch even if the new
| software doesn't offer new solutions.
| raddan wrote:
| It's not that pie can't be duplicated, it's that there are
| real costs to the duplication. And making pies precisely the
| same is surprisingly hard (pie is my favorite treat and I
| make them all the time).
|
| Not so with software. Duplication and distribution are
| essentially free. Copies are perfect replicas. Why not then
| insist on the best version? Also, with food, the varied
| experience of slightly different pies is fun ("variety is the
| spice of life"). Unless I expected variation in my software,
| I would be extremely annoyed that it did not do what I
| wanted.
| manuelmoreale wrote:
| Maybe I'm wrong--probably am--but isn't the article talking
| about something else? He's not talking about making a copy
| of a piece of software as a perfect replica. I think he's
| talking about coding something that is not conceptually
| different from something that was already existing.
| Timwi wrote:
| > I'm genuinely confused by your comment.
|
| I'm not, I get what they're saying. If I want to eat pie, I
| need to bake one first or find someone to bake it _every
| time_. If I want to use a software, I only need to write or
| find the software once; then I can keep using it
| indefinitely. Therefore, the common assumption is perfectly
| justified. Most people who write software do so to create
| something that isn 't already available.
|
| That said, I still agree with the post. Justified or not, the
| assumption is frequently wrong. Coding is fun for its own
| sake.
| manuelmoreale wrote:
| > Most people who write software do so to create something
| that isn't already available.
|
| Well I guess we must work in a different environment
| because over my 13 years as a web dev I've seen people
| trying to reinvent the weel and coding the same thing over
| and over again. Just think at all infinite JS frameworks.
|
| Are they technically identical? No. Was the problem
| "solved" already? Probably yes. Was it not solved the exact
| way the developer wanted? Also probably yes which is why
| they decided to code something new.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| They don't consider it technically identical. The design
| goal was to make something that's significantly better in
| some way or another. Which is very unlike pie baking.
|
| (I'm sure there's a few frameworks made just for
| fun/practice but by the time you see it published I'd
| round that down below 10%)
| nkrisc wrote:
| > I'm genuinely confused by your comment. Pies can be
| duplicated. You just grab the same ingredients and follow the
| same recipe.
|
| That's just a different pie made with the same ingredients
| and recipe, it's not the same pie I ate yesterday, it's not a
| duplicate. I can never have that pie I ate yesterday again.
|
| I can, however, make as many perfect duplicates of software
| as I want.
| manuelmoreale wrote:
| > I can, however, make as many perfect duplicates of
| software as I want.
|
| Absolutely true but the point of the article is not about
| duplicating software. Is about developing something someone
| else already developed in a similar way even though the act
| of doing that doesn't produce something that's "original".
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > a different pie made with the same ingredients and
| recipe, it's not the same pie
|
| Pie of Theseus has entered the chat
| Flop7331 wrote:
| I don't understand. The pie worked on my machine.
| berkes wrote:
| Not only is it duplicated on a whim, the internet makes
| discovering it, and getting it, very easy.
|
| So I can not only easily keep getting that one great pie
| infinitely, I can discover and sample every great pie in the
| world to find the very best one for me. With actual pie, I'd
| probably had to travel to Vienna (sachtertore!), or Seattle
| (apple pie?) to be able to "sample" it.
| apeescape wrote:
| I mean, recreational programming and creating a side project for
| fun is nice and all, but a peach pie is something you can consume
| and is thus of interest to anyone who likes peach pies, whereas
| software that does nothing differently or better than the
| existing (well-known) solutions is just, well, not interesting to
| anybody else than the person who wrote it. Kudos to you for
| writing a generic TODO app, but why should anyone else be excited
| about it? I'm not sure why we even need to compare baking pies to
| writing software, it's apples to oranges.
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| I think it depends on the motivation of the creator. We,
| software engineers, don't celebrate enough that someone is
| learning the craft.
|
| "I made a thing!"
|
| Hey, nice! Lots of us have made the thing, so if you want
| feedback or advice, just let us know!
|
| That's quite different from "I made a thing, and I think I can
| sell it."
|
| Hey, nice! Lots of us have made the thing so there's many on
| the market. What differentiates yours?
| layer8 wrote:
| I believe the common problem is when creators who submit
| their work on HN don't open with what differentiates their
| version, thus exhibiting a lack of awareness about existing
| solutions. And there is a cost in attention for HN readers to
| figure out if there's anything new and interesting about the
| work. There is an expectation that HN submissions should be
| worth the reader's while.
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| I was thinking more broadly when I wrote the comment. I
| agree about the tighter focus of HN.
| krisoft wrote:
| > software that does nothing differently or better than the
| existing (well-known) solutions is just, well, not interesting
| to anybody else than the person who wrote it.
|
| There can be many reasons. The practical availability or
| licensing of the work is the most common one. It is great that
| google has an amazing implementation of whatever state of the
| art algorithm. It is not much use to anybody else if they can't
| read the code, or can't build on it.
|
| The other practical reason is that people building the thing
| are building their mastery. You are not going to wake up one
| day and make a state of the art contribution on your first try.
| You need to build up your skills to it through a series of
| steps. This would matter even if all software ever written
| would be equally available and unencumbered for everyone. But
| if you want people to push the boundaries of what possible they
| have to get there first.
|
| Do you want someone to be able to bake a beautifully decorated
| 3 tier wedding cake? That journey starts with them baking a
| simple sponge cake. Then learning how to put icing on that.
| Then learning how to make a good cream filling. Then putting
| simple decoration on. And so on and so on. If you don't let
| them progress through all these steps and you demand that they
| bake 3 layer beautifully decorated cakes on their first day
| then increasingly less and less people will be able to push the
| state of the art.
| sqeaky wrote:
| I would argue that being the first open source variant of a
| common commercial product is an interesting differentiator.
| But if there's already an open source version just being
| another open source one isn't interesting. This is exactly
| the kind of difference that we're talking about that make
| something not "just another".
|
| And if someone's doing a thing to learn then why is it being
| shared, how does that change how it's interesting to other
| people? I often argue such things should be put in portfolios
| to show off skills, but that doesn't really make it
| interesting beyond the scope of evaluating someone's skill.
| This kind of academic or portfolio work is also clearly not
| what we're discussing because of course it has inherent value
| in just the creation.
|
| If you make it to do app and share it with me, I really don't
| care. Unless you're trying to show me that you can use
| language XYZ with tool set ABC and your to-do app does that.
| But even then I don't care about the to do with I care about
| your skills.
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| I mean if you wrote it purely in assembler, or pacman inside of
| Excel, or in a fun and interesting way. Purely functional,
| provably correct. There are lots of reasons to share it with
| others.
| Flop7331 wrote:
| I like it. We can bike-shed and ackshually the analogy to death,
| but it's a useful one.
|
| _How well does this pie scale?_
|
| Sorry, it's a pie. If you want some, I'm sharing.
| jp57 wrote:
| As others have mentioned, a pie is consumable, and thus a good
| one has value even if it isn't original.
|
| But a slight change to the original scenario makes asking about
| originality much more reasonable:
|
| _Imagine you write a peach pie recipe over the weekend, and you
| give a copy of the recipe to your friend. They respond:_
|
| _" Wait, how is this different from every other peach pie recipe
| that's ever been written? It seems really similar to another
| recipe I have."_
|
| That's not an unreasonable answer.
|
| When I was in a band, one of the most valuable things my
| songwriting friends and I did for each other was tell each other
| when our work sounded like something that was already out there.
|
| If you make a new piece of software and offer it to a friend to
| use, it's not unreasonable for them to ask how it's different
| from something that's out there already.
| drewcoo wrote:
| > "Wait, how is this different from every other peach pie
| recipe that's ever been written? It seems really similar to
| another recipe I have."
|
| > That's not an unreasonable answer.
|
| Pies are not supposed to be unique. Recipes are freely traded.
| That "friend" is an a-hole.
| jihiggins wrote:
| imo, only if it's asked in bad faith. maybe that's just
| worded poorly, but e.g. "oh, thanks! what'd you do
| differently with this recipe?" or w/e
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| If I took the time to develop, write down and share a
| recipe, I'd welcome that question. Even if it's not
| original, there is variation among peach pies and I clearly
| have an opinion on it.
| jajko wrote:
| Indeed if that's the response, you either have an
| acquaintance with 0 emotional intelligence that is by default
| like an elephant in porcelain shop in relationships, probably
| move on since its a lifelong effort to even just sustain such
| friendship.
|
| Or its an envious a-hole since such message is clearly
| denigrating, still lacks basic emotional intelligence, and
| then just run and don't look back. If I ever saw 2 women
| commenting each other's efforts like that, there would be a
| fight soon or at least lifelong hate would have firmly
| started.
|
| Normal response is for example a mix of appreciation of
| effort, curiosity about uniqueness and methodology, other
| recipes, etc. One can chip in other attempts and compare,
| that's how mankind lived till now and its considered normal
| human interaction (TM).
|
| Bad relationships are much worse than no relationships, be it
| friends or romantic type. Many folks are very afraid of
| loneliness, but there is strength in it with right mindset
| for everybody (us introverts thrive in loneliness just
| sparingly sprinkled with quality human interactions, but
| others consider it daunting to the point of preferring
| serious harm)
| zer00eyz wrote:
| The people closest to you are the ones who are supposed to
| be able to tell you that "you're wrong" in the least
| hurtful way.
|
| "Support everything I do blindly" is NOT what friends do
| its what sycophants do.
|
| Your friend is supposed to lift you up when your right, and
| tell you "you are being a moron" when your wrong.
| teddyh wrote:
| Thinking that friends must always be supportive and
| positive is exactly Geek Social Fallacy #2:
| <https://plausiblydeniable.com/five-geek-social-
| fallacies/>
| mistercow wrote:
| Also the analogy just really breaks at the seam we're
| examining because a reasonable and obvious answer would be "I
| like the pies you get from this one", which isn't a great
| answer if you're talking about software. And recipes are a
| lot simpler than software, so your friend could just look at
| the two recipes and quickly see how they're different.
| jp57 wrote:
| But the OP isn't talking about pies, really.
|
| It seems like the main difference of opinion in this thread
| comes down to one's default assumptions about whether you
| expect your friends to give you honest feedback or just smile
| to save your feelings. Maybe this is a generational or
| cultural difference, but I think if you can't get honest
| feedback from your friends you'll never get it at all.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| > When I was in a band, one of the most valuable things my
| songwriting friends and I did for each other was tell each
| other when our work sounded like something that was already out
| there.
|
| I'm a big advocate for originality, but its worth noting that
| most bands will have covered at least one song.
|
| > If you make a new piece of software and offer it to a friend
| to use, it's not unreasonable for them to ask how it's
| different from something that's out there already.
|
| If you're comparing baking to software then I'd argue that the
| software equivalent of a recipe is going to be frameworks and
| the programming language. And people do very much flock towards
| common frameworks that are known to work well. Just like how a
| lot of people prefer to use recipes that are known to work
| rather than chancing on something unknown.
| jp57 wrote:
| Sure, you do covers, and everyone knows the difference
| between a cover and an original. Even so, bands that do
| original music often try to do the cover in their own style,
| so the question of "how is this different from the original"
| is still relevant.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| > Sure, you do covers, and everyone knows the difference
| between a cover and an original.
|
| Everyone? You'd be amazed at the number of songs people
| think are the originals but are actually covers. I bet
| there's some songs even you didn't realise were covers
|
| > Even so, bands that do original music often try to do the
| cover in their own style
|
| "often" is a pretty telling term here because it's also
| often when the cover is extremely faithful to the original.
|
| > so the question of "how is this different from the
| original" is still relevant.
|
| People ask that question about all sorts of things. But
| what the point originally being inferred was, is that if
| the secondary item isn't distinct enough from the original
| then the secondary item doesn't have much value. And I'm
| making a point that doesn't apply to music (and nor do I
| believe it applies to baking either).
|
| The entire premise of some pastimes, such as karaoke, is
| centred around the concept of replication rather than
| originality.
|
| Personally, I prefer originality over replication too. but
| it would be stupid for me to ignore the fact that a
| significant number of the worlds population just want to
| enjoy something without caring about how original it is.
| jp57 wrote:
| _> Sure, you do covers, and everyone knows the difference
| between a cover and an original._
|
| _Everyone? You 'd be amazed at the number of songs
| people think are the originals but are actually covers. I
| bet there's some songs even you didn't realise were
| covers_
|
| Geez. I meant the concept of a cover vs the concept of an
| original. A cover is ultimately a performance, and is
| different from writing a new song. This is so well
| understood within the music community that a song even
| has separate copyrights for the song itself and a
| recording of its performance (even by the songwriter).
|
| A baked pie is analogous to a performance of a recipe,
| while the recipe itself is analogous to the song (as a
| concept).
|
| But it is strange to think of a reimplementation of a
| piece of software that one might acquire and use easily;
| it doesn't really fit the concept of performance. I am in
| fact a fan of reimplementing things in order to figure
| out how they work, but I don't expect my implementation
| to have any utility beyond the pedagogical value I got
| from doing it, unless it is in some way different from
| what exists already. I'm not sure what value I'd get from
| showing it to someone or what they'd get from looking at
| it, exactly.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| > Geez. I meant the concept of a cover vs the concept of
| an original. A cover is ultimately a performance, and is
| different from writing a new song. This is so well
| understood within the music community that a song even
| has separate copyrights for the song itself and a
| recording of its performance (even by the songwriter).
|
| If only it were that simple. There are constantly cases
| bought to court about similarities in one persons work to
| another artists. Then you have other issues around what
| constitutes a derivative work. And so many original songs
| sample other artists songs and pay them royalties, that's
| not a cover either.
|
| I think what you're trying to highlight is writing
| credits vs performance. Which is a lot easier to define.
| However even here, plenty of disputes still happen.
|
| > But it is strange to think of a reimplementation of a
| piece of software that one might acquire and use easily;
| it doesn't really fit the concept of performance.
|
| The real problem with these analogies is that you're
| comparing something consumable with something reuable.
| But I accept the point of an analogy isn't precision.
|
| > I am in fact a fan of reimplementing things in order to
| figure out how they work, but I don't expect my
| implementation to have any utility beyond the pedagogical
| value I got from doing it, unless it is in some way
| different from what exists already.
|
| Would emulation fall into this category? You're building
| software to run something exactly as it would run
| elsewhere - a reimplementation. The motive differs (to
| run on different hardware) but that's not a property of
| the product itself.
|
| Which comes back to my earlier post: you're talking about
| the merit of replication without discussing motives
| behind it. In your latest comment you say "to figure out
| how they work" and that's another great example of a
| motive that brings value to replication.
| albedoa wrote:
| > If only it were that simple. There are constantly cases
| bought to court about similarities in one persons work to
| another artists. Then you have other issues around what
| constitutes a derivative work. And so many original songs
| sample other artists songs and pay them royalties, that's
| not a cover either.
|
| It's increasingly difficult to accept that you are
| replying to jp57 in good faith. They are not talking
| about the ability of anyone to recognize the difference
| between an original and a derived work. The _concept_ of
| a cover is well-understood.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| I am replying in good faith.
|
| My point is that the whole concept of originality is a
| blurry mess and hugely subjective.
|
| To demonstrate that point, I was giving other examples of
| copying in music. Let's remember that it was me who
| introduced the analogy of a cover when the OP examples
| how bands might pride themselves on originality. I'm
| giving examples that his statement is false as often as
| it is true.
|
| Maybe I'm misunderstanding the OPs point of view. Or
| maybe I'm just too old for this debate because trends are
| usually cyclical. If either of those are true then I'm
| sorry and I'll bow out.
| jp57 wrote:
| Well, I'm in my 50s, I thought it was the kids who
| expected their friends to be uncritically accepting.
|
| This whole subthread spawned from one sentence where I
| asserted that I found it valuable when my friends would
| tell me if they thought my songs sounded too much like
| something else (and that they expected the same from me),
| as an illustration that there are contexts in which
| asking about originality is something that would be
| reasonable for a friend to do. Nothing you've said so far
| seems intended to refute any of that.
|
| I stand by the notion that the definition of "cover" and
| "original" song are not especially ambiguous, even though
| music appreciation _is_ subjective _and_ there are edge
| cases where reasonable people may disagree about whether
| two songs are "too similar" to be considered distinct
| songs.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| I wasn't claiming people get confused about covers. But
| to be honest, I think we've both been missing each others
| point.
|
| For the sake of keeping things on topic, and also because
| I'm about to crack open a bottle of whisky, I'll just
| leave the following comment:
|
| Your point about constructive feedback is an empowering
| one. And while I'm not sure I've understood the nuances
| of everything you've posted, I do 100% agree with your
| sentiment regarding constructive feedback.
| atoav wrote:
| I have thought about this in the context of making music as
| well. For me the line of thinking goes somewhat like this:
|
| 1. I value music that is a honest expression of a feeling, some
| sort of musical idea or whatever
|
| 2. Personally I would not usually feel satisfied with my own
| musical expression if I copied a thing that works for someone
| else
|
| This means that I also find it unlikely that a popstars
| scripted appearance just happened to authentically produce
| expressions that just coincidentally happened to reproduce
| sucessful music (especially given the fact that they don't
| write the songs themselves usually). Additionally I apply the
| standards I apply to myself to others. This is something e.g.
| programmers are probably deeply familiar with.
|
| Now this is a bit like in the Matrix films where Cypher betrays
| our heros, because he would rather enjoy his steak in the
| simulation than face the desert of the real. Only I believe the
| choice isn't really there. Either you can ignore the simulation
| or you're allergic to it. I could pretend I like whatever music
| people listen to usually, but it both bores me and makes me
| actively hate myself for listening to it.
|
| Now music that is good is something else. And it doesn't even
| need to be a new idea or particularily complex to play. There
| just needs to be something within the musical expression that
| itself goes elsewhere.
| 015a wrote:
| I think the better metaphor is: Imagine you make a chair over
| the weekend. You already have many chairs. Chairs are readily
| and cheaply available. Your design is likely derivative of many
| other chairs.
|
| Being told any of these things by a friend you show the chair
| to is entirely pointless and maybe even mean. The _only_ angle
| that has some level of social acceptability is an angle like
| "check out this chair that's like what you wanted to build,
| maybe you could learn something from it", but even that is a
| 50/50 on whether its taken positively or taken as "oh, you
| don't think I don't know how to build a chair, wtf bro".
|
| Pie recipes are different. Music is different (VERY different)
| (incomparable).
| jp57 wrote:
| I'd say software is more like a pie recipe or a song than
| like a pie or a chair.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| You're comparing completely different products by abstract
| concepts that are entirely contextual. So the GP is going
| to be just as "correct" as you. That's the problem with
| analogies, the more abstract they are, the more people
| disagree because they perceive them from a different
| contextual view point.
|
| edited to make the point clearer
| Spivak wrote:
| And yet we're paid to write derivative songs all day which
| is why I don't think the analogy fits.
|
| If I write yet another rails app that does nothing to push
| the industry forward and isn't novel (to a computer
| scientist) it nonetheless provides business value. And
| since it isn't consumed on use it's clear that we're
| talking about a bespoke durable good -- a chair, a shelf, a
| thing that is useful without it being novel.
|
| Software might be made of words but that doesn't make it a
| recipe or a song.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| But in this case, the bespoke rails app _does_ do
| something that other ones do not, in the sense of it
| works with a specific database with specific operations.
|
| To stretch the analogy, "this chair fits people who are
| 180.3cm tall better than any previous chair"
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _pie is consumable_
|
| More precisely, it's a rival good [1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)
| addaon wrote:
| More precisely, you mean more generally, not more precisely.
| Saying pie is a consumable and a rival good are equally
| accurate, but the former is more precise, as the former is a
| subset of the latter.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _you mean more generally, not more precisely_
|
| No, I meant what I wrote. Another comment mentioned a chair
| [1]. A comfortable chair is not consumable, but it is
| rival. Rivalry is what makes pies and code economically
| distinct, not consumability.
|
| Put another way, if you have access to infinite identical
| pies, they behave like code. They're still consumable. But
| not rival.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41401785
| sqeaky wrote:
| Brilliant inversion. Because software can be used without
| consuming it we presume there is some utility in new software
| distinct from prior software otherwise it would come with
| information explaining it was purely a "creative act" as the
| article puts it.
|
| I wouldn't create a new office suite for the joy of creation
| then offer it along side ms word or google docs. I might make
| one then put it in a portfolio as a showcase of skill or do it
| to learn some skill. But having two word processors is useless
| in a way that having 2 of a consumable good is not.
| dartos wrote:
| That's a big reason why software companies can be so
| profitable.
|
| Almost no material cost.
| strangattractor wrote:
| When a User adopts a new piece of software an investment of
| time and effort is necessary (not so for eating a pie). If a
| particular piece of software doesn't do anything to improve the
| User's current process it is a wasted investment. If the User
| currently doesn't use a similar piece of software because they
| found what is available lacking then why invest if the new
| software doesn't do anything different.
|
| Asking how a product is different is always relevant when
| allocation of your own resources is involved.
| ok_dad wrote:
| When I see two things that appear the same, but were developed
| or created by two different people and/or methods, I inspect
| each closely to see where the differences lie. Usually, there
| are some good lessons to learn from each new pie I consume!
| wolframhempel wrote:
| Aside from duplication there's also competition. If you bake for
| your family, your pie will be appreciated, regardless of its
| novelty. But if your pie is meant to go onto a supermarket shelf
| alongside other pies, you need to give the consumer an incentive
| to choose yours - by making it better and/or different.
| shprd wrote:
| Yeah, the main difference is software is accessible online so
| it's competing on a worldwide stage. This make people feel
| there's an abundance of software and they get picky.
|
| This is totally fine from economic perspective. But when it
| comes to side projects that aren't selling to consumers,
| there's no reason to bring down someone if you see no value in
| their work. Especially when they're sharing it for free with no
| expectations, like most software side projects we see here
| hosted on GitHub.
|
| Look at many show HN, someone sharing their little fun project,
| then you've some entitled users asking What
| does this offer over this product of fortune 500 company? Why
| should I use it?
|
| Often the side project still have some advantage but do these
| people realize how ridiculous and entitled they sound? The
| author shared a fun project for free, they're not asking for a
| billion $ investment.
| layer8 wrote:
| > Especially when they're sharing it for free with no
| expectations
|
| I doubt that most creators sharing their work as a Show HN
| have no expectations.
| shprd wrote:
| What are the expectations? Considering i'm specifically
| talking about free software often hosted on GitHub?
| layer8 wrote:
| What do you think motivates people to submit a Show HN?
| Typically they expect to get _something_ out of it that
| they don't get by their project just sitting on GitHub.
| shprd wrote:
| I don't know about you but I'm speaking from experience,
| not hypothetically. I shared multiple open source side
| projects where I made something for myself then shared it
| with the world.
|
| > Typically they expect to get something out of it that
| they don't get by their project just sitting on GitHub.
|
| Can you expand? the vast majority of open source projects
| don't make a dime. I don't see the ulterior motive you're
| talking about. Unless you mean like they get more GitHub
| stars?
| KolmogorovComp wrote:
| clout
| layer8 wrote:
| What motivated you to share them? What outcome did you
| expect?
|
| I'm not talking about revenue. I'm talking about the fact
| that sharing their creation usually comes with
| expectations of some (at least psychological) benefit for
| the sharer. For example, some people want to receive
| praise for the project. Or they may want to attract
| collaborators. Still others actually do seek criticism in
| order to potentially improve the work.
|
| Therefore, "sharing without expectations" doesn't seem a
| likely occurrence in that context. People do have
| expectations, if only unconsciously, and others react
| with the understanding of such expectations being
| present.
| shprd wrote:
| But there was nothing demanded that the users needed to
| do. Just "Hey I made this cool thing and it does XYZ."
| That was my point. If the word 'expectations' entails
| things like one feeling good about making a small
| difference in the world then I meant something else and
| that was a poor choice of words on my part.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > Typically they expect to get something out of it that
|
| Where do I begin ?
|
| Satisfaction, narcissism, sense of self-worth, approval,
| love they never got from their parents...
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > What does this offer over this product of fortune 500
| company? Why should I use it?
|
| It's worse, "what does it offer for a Fortune 500 company"
| A_Duck wrote:
| It also makes sense for the maker to have some empathy for the
| chosen audience/recipient
|
| What does this person want with your peach pie -- why is it
| relevant to them? What do they get from the interaction
| thro2309 wrote:
| > _The friend has assumed that your goal is to "efficiently"
| reach the goal of a delicious pie, or perhaps even to create a
| new kind of pie. But that's not the goal at all!_
|
| > _Baking a pie is a creative act. It 's personal, it's
| inherently delightful, it's an act of caring for others. It's
| also a craft that one can improve at over time. Just buying the
| "best" pie would defeat the point._
|
| Not sure author realises the irony here. Creating "the pie" is
| not art. It is not even craft. It is baking ingredients, and
| people did that bazilions times before.
| episteme wrote:
| If baking a pie isn't a craft then I don't know what is. Do you
| believe there is no skill involved with baking a pie?
| aapoalas wrote:
| You seem to have misread "act" as "art."
| kbelder wrote:
| My brother sat with my mother one day, meticulously recording
| every detail he could while she made a pie crust, filled it,
| and baked it. All the quantities, how they were combined,
| temperatures, durations, etc.
|
| He still cannot replicate her pies.
| quesera wrote:
| GP is pointlessly provocative, although an argument might be
| made that industrial pie _production_ is neither art nor
| craft.
|
| Your mom's case is different and much more interesting. She
| must make truly transcendent pies.
|
| My half-dozen forays into making "from scratch" pie crust and
| filling have been surprisingly successful, but I might be
| missing something. I followed recipes from either Mark
| Bittman or America's Test Kitchen.
| blurri wrote:
| Remind me to never try your pie.
| Flop7331 wrote:
| You have a weirdly narrow view of what constitutes art or
| craft.
| Rodmine wrote:
| Better title would be: Don't show your pie to losers on a
| website; feed it to the hungry.
| yimmothathird wrote:
| The hungry should be eating gruel, not pie.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Yes the peasants need to know their place
| sqeaky wrote:
| Normally to determine if someone is not cruel and worth being
| near in general I invite them to a nice restaurant. Then I
| let them handle most of the interactions with the wait staff.
| If they are rude or jerks to people they have authority over
| I stop interacting with them. Thank you for saving me the
| price of a meal with having to vet you.
| Flop7331 wrote:
| Careful with that edge, son. Don't want you to cut yourself.
| ulrischa wrote:
| A pie is just for enjoy a Snack. Software is mostly for getting
| work done
| Flop7331 wrote:
| > Software is mostly for getting work done
|
| Hmm... While I try to refrain from picking sides in a beatdown
| on an analogy, that's an interesting suggestion that seems
| worth examining.
|
| There's a lot of software I use that isn't for getting work
| done. Even the software that's _meant_ for getting work done
| doesn 't have to be used that way.
| j7ake wrote:
| Other analogies that might also work:
|
| Playing a classical piece music. You'll never be anywhere near
| the top musicians, but people still do it because it's enjoyable.
| They also share it with others.
|
| Painting: you're not a professional, but creating and sharing
| your works is still a joy.
| jdeaton wrote:
| Software isnt pie. It isnt even food
| asah wrote:
| ??? is this a troll post?
|
| A pie is a physical object which enjoys a barrier to competition
| by being geographically near the consumer - other pies are not
| near your mouth.
|
| A pie degrades quickly over time - last month's pie is not a
| competitor to today's pie.
|
| A pie is destroyed during consumption - the pie your friend ate
| cannot be then eaten by you, no matter how delicious they say it
| was.
|
| Software (and especially web/mobile/SaaS) is nothing like pies -
| your friend eats a delicious piece of software, telecommunicates
| this to you halfway around the world and you can put down the pie
| you were eating and instantly eat the same pie as your friend,
| then tell more friends. Pretty soon, nobody's eating the previous
| pies.
| Flop7331 wrote:
| Maybe it's an actor for a nation state intentionally dropping
| this disinformation as a false flag to distract the humongous
| brains of HN!!!
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| Going to skip the analogy, because everyone has tortured it
| sufficiently already.
|
| This is a good point. The comment section implicitly argues for
| novelty because it seeks a dopamine hit for something new --
| after all, that's what people are looking for when they browse an
| aggregator! However, novel isn't everything even if you get more
| Internet points for it.
|
| Is it original to execute something really well? Some would say
| yes, and some would say no. Lots of software that has had an
| outsized impact started out as very similar to other things, with
| "just" some improvements here and there. And I guarantee you
| there were over-eager commenters telling people to not be excited
| because it isn't new enough to them.
|
| This isn't arguing for toxic positivity, either. Just a
| recognition that the bored/cynical users need for novelty is not
| something that everything listed on the Internet has to fill.
| wnc3141 wrote:
| Nothing from the outset appears that original, in a world of
| nearly infinite information, when you start. So just do the
| thing, it will become original in your execution of the thing.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Except it is not a pie but a shovel. So the question how does it
| differs from ShovelMaster 3000 that is used on all other
| construction sites is not unreasonable.
|
| And there can be a lot of good answers - it is lighter, it looks
| cooler, the grip is more ergonomic, it is made of chinesium and
| cheap and if you are only building a shed - it will get the job
| done without using the unholy trinity of docker, ansible and
| terraform, and it will be in your hands in 5 min and not require
| overnight delivery by amazon.
|
| And you can see this here on hnews - when someone shows us
| something that is entertaining, no asks how it differs from
| Heroes 3 or Quake. But we do for the next cloud synced postman
| clone that is on it's way to becoming as worse as Postman when
| they get the VC money.
| imchillyb wrote:
| "How's it different?" is an excellent metric.
|
| Why pay you, a person with this as their resume, when I can pay
| someone with 10 other 'hits' on their resume and their software
| also does this?
|
| Why pay the newb is a great question to ask.
|
| The answer to 'How is it different' is a whiteboard interview
| problem. If the developer cannot immediately extol the virtues of
| their product, do you want to give them money? Are they confident
| in their skills? Were they just copying other's recipes?
|
| You'll know the answer to that and many other questions the
| minute the developer has to think and answer this fundamental
| question.
|
| You'll also know if they're full of shit almost immediately.
|
| It doesn't matter what the developer's prior relationship to you
| was. When they hand you software, and expect others to pay for it
| they need to be asked this question. Their answer will assist
| them in understanding their product and how to sell it to others.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-30 23:00 UTC)